are guided missiles underpowered?

Am I missing something or are my guided missiles no doing enough damage?

In my last conflicts I decided to give a try to a massive offensive using guided missiles and i must say it was quiet dissapointed. They are maybe useful for destroying improvements, but I find aircraft to be much more powerful in every aspect. Bombers and fighters can attack enemy troops, bomb cities, and destroy improvements and the best is that you don't lose them after battle, plus the collateral damage of bombers is a HUGE advantage. so what's special about guided missiles?

I really think missiles should be buffed a little bit. maybe adding collateral dmg. or adding the ability to kill units... of course this would mean an increase on their cost...

I also think there should be a land unit able to carry missiles and tactical nukes. maybe give mobile artillery this ability, this would make them more attractive. any thoughts about it?

Guided Missiles should definitely be buffed, and I agree there should be a land missile unit. Although I guess you can put them into forts.

I've often thought that rather than give them collateral damage, they should have a "surgical strike " abillity.They should be able to choose which target in the stack they attack sort of like the attack subs in one of those versions of CIV III .They're guided missiles, after all.

But their power is that they have no counter, you can safely attack anywhere and it will not be shot down.

What about letting them target a specific building?

i use them for ship killing, and invasions (sub weapondry if a tube is open and no tactical nuke is ready) Perhaps you are using them as one would use a bomber/siege- but they are better used after bombarding. I will look around for "Attacko's Missle Program Explained".

They are so underpowered IMO. I mean, these are the primary weapons for the US in real life. When we want to invade a country, the guided missiles and bombs rain down first (remember "Shock and Awe"). You have to build dozens for them to effectively ruin a good stack. I'd rather have them be able to be shot down and give them precision strike ability as discussed above (choose unit / building) and have it do some big damage to that only

I've found them extremely valuable for amphibious invasion, such that I rarely use carriers. While missile cruisers can easily take down cultural defenses, a good stack of guided missiles (they are quite cheap to build as well) can weaken the cities' toughest defenders to the point that marines can usually win their first battles and tanks/mech infantry can do the mop-up such that they are still powerful enough to defend the city once it is taken. Rather than the power, I've generally found that the main drawback of guided missiles is their limited range.

Also, assuming that one can stockpile them in home-territory, missiles are also excellent for being able to continue an offensive against a distant enemy. Once the first city is taken (and assuming it can be held) there are no restrictions (unlike aircraft) on the number of missiles a city can hold. Any number can immediately be moved to a taken city, ready to hit the next target.

^ ^ ^ Didn't know that. I thought they were limited by air restrictions. Still should be able to choose the target, tho ( IMO ). Like was previously said... they are GUIDED missiles, right?

Wouldn't one select the strongest unit to attack? Which is what automatically happens.
It is "guided" to this. Why hit a building if your going to raze or keep a city? (unless i suppose a pillage attack.

Not necessarily. Because the strongest unit usually isn't going to be a machine gun (usually if you have guided missiles) and that's the best defender against infantry. It may be a specialized case, but there are others. Perhaps an attacking stack has a cubic butt-ton of artillery that are guarded by the MUCH stronger infantry or paratroopers. I would rather target the artillery with my guided missiles making them much less effective at issuing collateral damage to my defending stack.

Plus, they don't allow you to choose a specific building to attack (currently, not counting spies) which is a powerful (and realistic) tool. Perhaps it would take 2 or 3 missiles to destroy a building and that's fine. It adds another dimension to modern warfare. Sort of an extension to gutting the countryside of land improvements is being able to ruin a city's productive/health/economic bonuses.

Ian Kognitow said:

I've found them extremely valuable for amphibious invasion, such that I rarely use carriers. While missile cruisers can easily take down cultural defenses, a good stack of guided missiles (they are quite cheap to build as well) can weaken the cities' toughest defenders to the point that marines can usually win their first battles and tanks/mech infantry can do the mop-up such that they are still powerful enough to defend the city once it is taken. Rather than the power, I've generally found that the main drawback of guided missiles is their limited range.

Also, assuming that one can stockpile them in home-territory, missiles are also excellent for being able to continue an offensive against a distant enemy. Once the first city is taken (and assuming it can be held) there are no restrictions (unlike aircraft) on the number of missiles a city can hold. Any number can immediately be moved to a taken city, ready to hit the next target.

Click to expand...

QFT. In fact, they are frighteningly overpowered simply for the fact that there is no counter for them. Imagine an enemy coming with several dozen of these things and destroying every important resource you possess, and you can't do a thing about it.

As was stated earlier, they are also the difference maker in naval combats. It's the difference between trading ships at a nearly even rate and annihlitating an opposing navy with almost no losses.

The other strategies that require air superiority...well....require air superiority, which is never constant or permanent.

I used to possess the same opinion as the OP until I learned how to actually use them properly.

I learned it from the Dutch. They didn't have oil, so they were stuck with mech inf and guided missiles. What a nightmare. Their constant missile barrage ruined my industrial capacity, caused starvation due to resource loss, and kept me continually bereft of coal, oil, iron, etc... There was nothing I could do to stop it. It was the most effective attack an AI has ever used against me. It took centuries for my backline cities to create the navy necessary to slow down the Dutch barage, and I still took horrific naval casualties due to their hidden ships (which are obviously more difficult to find) and unstoppable missiles.

It's actually too bad that the AI won't utilize this strategy unless they must, bcz it's the most unstoppable and devastating.

Wow! I gotta try the guided missile spam tonight!!!

They're 60 hammers in the modern era. Usually I can get a city making one every turn if I want to. That's usually enough for bombardment and then some.

I had a very successful modern war using massed missiles and mech infantry exclusively, although my games seldom get that far along without them being decided. In this game though it mattered and the missiles worked.

They're a bit restrictive to go specifically for though. That's perhaps my biggest problem with them.

In regards to realism: They ought to be called "Cruise Missles" instead of "Guided Missles".

Locally-guided missles can be trained on a specific target (like an enemy tank). Attacking tanks might use wire-guided missles; planes can use laser-guided missles; et. al. In any case, the target must be in visual range.

The in-game missles, with their independent operation and long range (~100 miles?) are clearly of the fire-and-forget variety, like the Tomahawk. Cruise missles do have guidance systems, but the target must be pre-selected and it must be something you can pinpoint on a map (at least on land).

Thus, cruise missles are an effective strategic weapon against stationary targets. I think this is well-reflected in the game, as you can use them to reduce defenses and destroy improvements.

Naval vessels are a special case. They are slow and very, very big compared to land units. It's ridiculously easy for a low-flying missle's radar system to distinguish between a big hunk of metal and the surface of the ocean. The U.S., U.K., and Israel have all suffered naval damage from long-range missles despite being technologically more advanced than their attackers.


Also...

There is a question of numeric scale.

An infantry unit in the game represents (probably) thousands of troops; a tank unit might represent hundreds of tanks; and a destroyer unit could be just a couple of ships.

On the ordnance side, an artillery barrage could easily include thousands of rounds, while a bomber strike could count as hundreds of bombs.

Cruise missles, on the other hand, are big and expensive. So I think it's a good guess to say that an in-game missle unit represents no more than a half-dozen missles. That's enough to take out an oil well or a battleship, but even with pinpoint accuracy you couldn't destroy an entire tank division.


-D

Damage wise they are okay but the range is way too small. As a former rocket scientist, I can assure you guided missiles go further in real life.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

They are so underpowered IMO. I mean, these are the primary weapons for the US in real life.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I'm going to mod missile cruisers to have 8 cruise missiles-I think that is where missiles are the most lacking. It annoys me when I see missile cruisers using their guns in Civ4. Missile cruisers wouldn't use their peashooters on anything but work boats. for everything else, there's Harpoons.

troytheface said:

Wouldn't one select the strongest unit to attack? Which is what automatically happens.
It is "guided" to this. Why hit a building if your going to raze or keep a city? (unless i suppose a pillage attack.

Click to expand...

It's all situational. I don't always war to capitulate or eliminate a civ. Maybe I only want oil, aluminum, or some other resource. Even if it's just to monopolize it, or control it or deny it to someone else. Sometimes I go to war to disrupt my rival's path to victory. Maybe all I want is a holy city or a corporate HQ. Sometimes it's a world wonder.

In the paper /scissors /rock of modern warfare, the strongest base strength isn't nescessarily the biggest problem. If I have a stack of tanks or modern armor, I'd probably like to take out his helicopters with my missiles, and let my tanks barrage and roll over everything else.

If I'm approaching an island with one or two cities that I plan to keep, I might choose to destroy his airport to reduce /prevent re-enforcements from the continent.

If he's threatening a cultural victory I might like to slow him down by destroying a cultural building in a key city. Sometimes I'd just like to blow the AP or UN off of his map. Maybe I'd like to strike his scotland yard if I'm losing a spy war.

I was using lots of guided missiles in my most recent game - mostly because they are fast to build. I was at war with everyone in the world. Rather than wait ~10 turns for my small cites to build a tank or whatever, I found it better to get a missile in 2 turns. My air-force was too small to attack anything without being shot down, so the missiles did a much better job - since they cannot be shot down. I'd use one to blast an enemy missile carrier before I attacked with my own carrier (so that my odds of surviving were much higher), and I'd use several of them to lower enemy city defences at a distance so that I could take cites without having to wait outside for the artillery to do their job.

The missiles are not very powerful. But they are useful, and they are very cheap.

My invasion fleet was basicly destroyed when Chinese used all these guided missiles on me for their defense. they are definetly NOT underpowered.